Lewis v. Cumberland County Sheriff's Department et al

Filing 36

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The undersigned finds that the statute of limitations bars Ms. Lewis's claims. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that: (1) Ms. Lewis failed to demonstrate that her constitutional rights were violated, and (2) Mr. Sh elton is entitled to qualified immunity. The undersigned therefore recommends that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No. 28 ) be GRANTED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffery S. Frensley on 8/6/2020. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(vh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION
MELANIE LEWIS,
Plaintiff,
v.

JEFFREY SHELTON, in his
individual capacity
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-00029
Judge Crenshaw/Frensley

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
I. INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND
In this civil rights case, Plaintiff Melanie Lewis (“Ms. Lewis”) alleges that her Eighth
Amendment rights were violated when Defendant Jeffrey Shelton (“Mr. Shelton”) used excessive
force against her and Cumberland County medical personnel evinced deliberate indifference to her
serious medical needs. Docket No. 1, pp. 7-8.
This matter is before the Court upon a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Mr. Shelton.
Docket No. 28. Along with his Motion, Mr. Shelton has filed a supporting Memorandum of Law,
a Statement of Undisputed Facts, excerpts of Ms. Lewis’s Deposition, and the Declarations of
himself, Tim Claflin, Phillip Hughes, Aaron Hamby, and Chris West. Docket Nos. 29, 30-1, 30-2,
30-3, 30-4, 30-5, 30-6, 31. As grounds for his Motion, Mr. Shelton argues that Ms. Lewis’s
Complaint should be dismissed because: (1) Ms. Lewis’s claims are barred, in whole or in part, by
the statute of limitations; (2) Mr. Shelton is entitled to qualified immunity; and (3) Ms. Lewis
cannot establish that she suffered constitutional deprivations as alleged. Docket No. 28.
Ms. Lewis has not responded to the instant Motion or to the Statement of Undisputed Facts.

Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 21 PageID #: 154

A.

Procedural Background

On March 28, 2018, Ms. Lewis filed her initial Complaint in this pro se, in forma pauperis
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Docket No. 1. Ms. Lewis brought suit against Cumberland
County Jail, as well as the following county employees, in their individual and official capacities:
Sheriff Casey Cox, Jeffrey Shelton, Captain Tim Claflin, and “Unknown Medical Personnel.” Id
at 3-4. In her Complaint, Ms. Lewis alleges violations of her Eighth Amendment rights, arguing
that: (1) Mr. Shelton used excessive force in his response to Ms. Lewis’s attack on April 27, 2017;
and (2) Cumberland County authorities evinced deliberate indifference to Ms. Lewis’s serious
medical needs by denying her prescribed seizure and mental health medication during her
incarceration, failing to transport her to the hospital in a timely manner while she was in labor, and
failing to treat her abscessed tooth. Id at 7-8.
Ms. Lewis seeks compensatory and punitive damages, an award of attorney fees, and a
declaratory judgment requiring Defendants to review medical and security protocols. Id. Following
the Memorandum Order of Judge Crenshaw on December 13, 2018, the only remaining defendants
in this action are Jeffrey Shelton, in his individual capacity, and “Unknown Medical Personnel.”
Docket Nos. 7, 8.
On December 13, 2018, Ms. Lewis was ordered to return service packets for Mr. Shelton
and “Unknown Medical Personnel” within 21 days. Docket No. 8, p. 2. After failing to meet this
deadline, Ms. Lewis was ordered to produce service packets 21 days from January 8, 2019. Docket
No. 10. Ms. Lewis again failed to meet the court-ordered deadline and was ordered, on February
13, 2019, to return service packets by March 1, 2019. Docket No. 11. At Ms. Lewis’s request, the
Court granted an extension until April 19, 2019. Docket Nos. 14-15. Summons were issued on
April 23, 2019, and Mr. Shelton was served on May 10, 2019. Docket Nos. 17, 19. Defendant

2
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 2 of 21 PageID #: 155

“Unknown Medical Personnel” remains unidentified and unserved. Docket No. 20. On May 31,
2019, Mr. Shelton filed an Answer denying the allegations and asserting defenses of statute of
limitations and qualified immunity. Docket No. 21.
Mr. Shelton filed this Motion for Summary Judgment on March 13, 2020. Docket No. 28.
Ms. Lewis has not responded to the instant Motion or to the Statement of Undisputed Facts.
For the reasons discussed below, the undersigned find that Ms. Lewis’s actions are barred
by the statute of limitations; even if they were not time-barred, however, Ms. Lewis’s claims would
still fail. The undersigned therefore recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment
(Docket No. 28) be GRANTED and that this action be DISMISSED.
II. FACTS1
A.

Declaration of Tim Claflin

At all times relevant to this action, Tim Claflin was serving as Jail Administrator for
Cumberland County, Tennessee; he has attached copies of Ms. Lewis’s original records. Docket
No. 30-1, Declaration of Tim Claflin, ¶ 2.
Cumberland County Jail contracts with a physician to provide medical services and
oversight to jail nursing staff. Id. As part of business practices, the medical staff keeps records
regarding the treatment provided to inmates. Id. These records are owned by the County, but such
records are not available to jail personnel. Id. Inmate healthcare information is provided on an asneeded basis. Id. When inmates come into the jail, Tennessee Corrections Institute Regulations
require that any prescribed medications be verified. Id., ¶ 3. A contract physician oversees the
nursing staff, and only the jail physician is qualified to prescribe medications or order specific
treatment for inmates while they are in custody and under the care of jail medical personnel. Id.
On September 14, 2016, Ms. Lewis entered Cumberland County Jail after violating her
terms of probation. Id., ¶ 4. On January 5, 2017, Nurse Starnes attempted to obtain a release from

3
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 3 of 21 PageID #: 156

Ms. Lewis to obtain medical records, but Ms. Lewis refused on account of her upcoming court
date. Id. Ms. Lewis was released from jail on January 26, 2017. Id.
From March 3, 2017 to June 9, 2017, Ms. Lewis was again incarcerated in Cumberland
County Jail. Id., ¶ 5. On April 23, 2017, Ms. Lewis got into a fight with another female inmate,
and on April 27, 2017, she assaulted Jeff Shelton. Id. Ms. Lewis’s assault on Jeff Shelton resulted
in a new charge for aggravated assault, to which Ms. Lewis pled guilty. Id.
At no time during either of these incarcerations was Ms. Lewis pregnant or suffering from
an abscessed tooth. Id., ¶ 6. However, jail records indicate that Ms. Lewis entered Cumberland
County Jail in November of 2014 with an abscessed tooth and in August of 2015 pregnant. Id.
B.

Ms. Lewis’s Deposition

Ms. Lewis was not suffering from an abscessed tooth when she was incarcerated in
Cumberland County Jail in September of 2016. Docket No. 30-6, p. 2. Ms. Lewis was not pregnant
during her incarceration between September of 2016 and January of 2017. Id. at 3.
C.

Declaration of Jeff Shelton

Prior to being attacked by Ms. Lewis, Mr. Shelton had responded to two situations in
which Ms. Lewis alleged to have been suffering from seizures. Docket No. 30-2, Declaration of
Jeff Shelton, ¶ 3. Mr. Shelton witnessed several seizures throughout his time working in the jail.
Id. On each occasion, however, Ms. Lewis was responsive during the alleged seizures. Id. After
these incidents, Ms. Lewis threatened to “pick up new charges” if Mr. Shelton accused her of
faking seizures. Id. Shortly before the attack, Ms. Lewis began calling Mr. Shelton names and
referring to herself as “Felony Melanie.” Id. Mr. Shelton perceived this to be her attempts to
intimidate or threaten him. Id.
On April 27, 2017, Mr. Shelton was passing out medications near the Women’s Pod. Id., ¶

4
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 4 of 21 PageID #: 157

3. Ms. Lewis was out of the Pod. Id. Ms. Lewis ran out from the Women’s Hallway, yelled “I have
something for you,” and punched Mr. Shelton in the mouth with a closed fist. Id. She continued to
throw punches at Mr. Shelton, whose attempts at defending himself were ineffective. Id. Mr.
Shelton fell to the floor on his back, and Ms. Lewis advanced, stating, “Now I got you!” Id., ¶ 4.
Ms. Lewis straddled Mr. Shelton and continued to strike him. Id. Mr. Shelton, terrified, continued
to attempt to defend himself against Ms. Lewis’s blows. Id.
Finally, Mr. Shelton was able to sweep Ms. Lewis to the ground. Id., ¶ 5. Mr. Shelton
straddled Ms. Lewis and tried to flip her onto her stomach to handcuff her. Id. Throughout the
altercation, Ms. Lewis continued to struggle, curse, scream, and flail. Id. As Mr. Shelton grappled
with her, he yelled repeatedly to tell her to stop resisting, but Ms. Lewis did not comply. Id. Ms.
Lewis and Mr. Shelton ended up against a wall, which limited Ms. Lewis’s movement. Id. Mr.
Shelton was then able to grab one of Ms. Lewis’s arms but struggled to grab the other. Id. Around
this time, other corrections officers came to Mr. Shelton’s aid. Id. Someone tapped Mr. Shelton’s
shoulder and ordered Ms. Lewis onto her stomach. Id. Ms. Lewis complied, and Mr. Shelton
applied a wrist lock. Id. Chris West and Aaron Hamby took over handcuffing Ms. Lewis as Mr.
Shelton stepped away, out of breath. Id. Per protocol, Ms. Lewis was led to Booking to be seen by
medical personnel. Id., ¶ 6. Ms. Lewis continued to yell obscenities at Mr. Shelton. Id.
Mr. Shelton was unable to effect sufficient force to gain control of the situation or Ms.
Lewis until help arrived to assist him. Id. At no time did Mr. Shelton place a knee in Ms. Lewis’s
back, nor was he involved in cuffing Ms. Lewis or in tightening her handcuffs. Id. Ms. Lewis never
mentioned that her handcuffs were too tight. Id.
Mr. Shelton feared for his safety and sustained injuries as a result of Ms. Lewis’s attack.
Id., ¶ 7. Mr. Shelton had swelling and bruising on the left side of his face and right lower mouth,

5
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 5 of 21 PageID #: 158

a cut inside his mouth, right wrist pain, and left knee pain and bruising. Id.
D.

Declaration of Phillip Hughes
On April 27, 2017, Phillip Hughes was working as a corrections officer for Cumberland

County when he responded to a call from Tower personnel regarding an officer in distress in
Women’s Housing. Docket No. 30-3, Declaration of Phillip Hughes, ¶ 2. As he rounded the corner
to Women’s Housing, Officer Hughes heard Mr. Shelton shouting “Stop resisting!” Id., ¶ 3. Officer
Hughes then saw Ms. Lewis and Mr. Shelton on the floor. Id. Mr. Shelton was pale, out of breath,
and bleeding by the mouth. Id. Mr. Shelton did not have Ms. Lewis under control. Id. Mr. Shelton
had Ms. Lewis’s right wrist and was trying to roll her onto her stomach while continually advising
Ms. Lewis to stop resisting. Id. Ms. Lewis continued to resist. Id. At that time, Officer Hughes
ordered Ms. Lewis onto her stomach. Id., ¶ 4. Ms. Lewis complied. Id. Another officer handcuffed
Ms. Lewis and took her to Booking. Id.
At no time did Mr. Shelton use any force on Ms. Lewis after she had been subdued. Id. At
no time did Officer Hughes witness Mr. Shelton put his knee in Ms. Lewis’s back. Id. Ms. Lewis
never complained of her handcuffs being too tight. Id.
E.

Declaration of Aaron Hamby
On April 27, 2017, Aaron Hamby was working as a corrections officer for Cumberland

County and responded to a call from Tower personnel about a corrections officer needing
assistance. Docket No. 30-5, Declaration of Aaron Hamby, ¶ 2. Officer Hamby ran to the hallway
and saw Ms. Lewis fighting Mr. Shelton. Id. Ms. Lewis was on the floor, pushing, shoving, and
rolling against the wall. Id. Mr. Shelton was pale and sweating, fighting to get Ms. Lewis under
control as she continued yelling, cursing, and resisting. Id.
Another corrections officer ordered Ms. Lewis to roll over onto her stomach, and she

6
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 6 of 21 PageID #: 159

finally complied. Id., ¶ 4. Officer Hamby and another officer handcuffed Ms. Lewis and took her
to the front to be checked by the nurse, per protocol. Id. Ms. Lewis continued to yell and curse at
Mr. Shelton as she walked away. Id.
At no time did Mr. Shelton use any force on Ms. Lewis after she was subdued. Id., ¶ 5. At
no time did Mr. Shelton put his knee in Ms. Lewis’s back. Id.
F.

Declaration of Chris West

On April 27, 2017, Chris West was working as a corrections officer for Cumberland
County and responded to a call from Tower personnel instructing all “rovers” to go to Women’s
Housing. Docket No. 30-4, Declaration of Chris West, ¶ 2. Officer West ran to the area and initially
saw Mr. Shelton straddling Ms. Lewis on the ground as he tried to handcuff her. Id. Ms. Lewis
was uncompliant, lying on her side, twisting and cursing. Id. Mr. Shelton was out of breath and
struggling. Id. Officer West only observed Mr. Shelton use the force necessary to try to gain
compliance. Id. However, Mr. Shelton still could not gain control of the situation or get Ms. Lewis
handcuffed, so Officer West and another officer had to handcuff her. Id. After she was cuffed, Ms.
Lewis was taken to Booking by other officers. Id. Ms. Lewis continued to scream and curse at Mr.
Shelton as she was led down the hall. Id. Officer West noticed that Mr. Shelton had a fresh injury
to his eye after the altercation. Id.
At no time did Mr. Shelton use any force on Ms. Lewis after she was subdued. Id., ¶ 3. At
no time did Mr. Shelton put his knee in Ms. Lewis’s back or tighten her handcuffs. Id. Ms. Lewis
never complained of her handcuffs being too tight. Id.
III.
A.

LAW AND ANALYSIS

Statute of Limitations
Mr. Shelton asserts that Ms. Lewis’s actions are time-barred because the statute of

7
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 7 of 21 PageID #: 160

limitations for Ms. Lewis’s claims has run. Docket Nos. 28, p. 1; 29, p. 5.
Federal courts apply state law to determine the statute of limitations applicable to claims
brought pursuant to federal civil rights statutes. See, e.g., Roberson v. Tennessee, 399 F.3d 792,
794 (6th Cir. 2005); Sevier v. Turner, 742 F.2d 262, 272 (6th Cir. 1984). Tennessee law provides
for a one-year statute of limitations for civil actions brought under the federal civil rights statutes.
T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(3); Roberson, 399 F.3d at 794. Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 3 further
asserts that:
All civil actions are commenced by filing a complaint with the clerk of the court.
An action is commenced within the meaning of any statute of limitations upon such
filing of a complaint, whether process be issued or not issued and whether process
be returned served or unserved. If process remains unissued for 90 days or is not
served within 90 days from issuance, regardless of the reason, the plaintiff
cannot rely upon the original commencement to toll the running of a statute of
limitations unless the plaintiff continues the action by obtaining issuance of new
process within one year from issuance of the previous process or, if no process is
issued, within one year of filing the complaint.
Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3 (emphasis added).
The Plaintiff may initially file a complaint that names an unknown Defendant by using a
“John Doe” appellation or similar pseudonym. Smith v. City of Chattanooga, 2009 WL 3762961,
at *12 (E. D. Tenn. November 4, 2009). However, identifying a Defendant in such a way is not
enough to commence a civil action against that unknown Defendant. Id. The action is commenced
against a John Doe Defendant when the Complaint is amended under Rule 15 to specifically name
and identify that Defendant by his true name and the Plaintiff effects service of process upon that
named Defendant in compliance with Rule 4.
B.

Local Rules 7.01(a)(3) and 56.01(c) and (f)

Ms. Lewis has failed to respond to Mr. Shelton’s Motion for Summary Judgment or
Statement of Undisputed Facts.

8
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 8 of 21 PageID #: 161

Local Rule 7.01(a)(3) states, in pertinent part:
(a)(3). Response. Except for motions for reconsideration (to which no response
shall be filed unless ordered by the Court), any party opposing a motion must serve
and file a memorandum of law in response, and, if necessary to support assertions
of fact, affidavits and depositions, not later than fourteen (14) days after service of
the motion, except, that in cases of a motion for summary judgment, that time shall
be twenty-one (21) days after the service of the motion, unless otherwise ordered
by the Court. The response shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages without leave
of Court. If a timely response is not filed, the motion shall be deemed to be
unopposed, except for motions to reconsider for which no response shall be
permitted unless ordered by the Court.
L. R. 7.01 (emphasis added).
With respect to Motions for Summary Judgment specifically, Local Rules 56.01(c) and (f)
state, in pertinent part:
(c) Response to Statement of Facts. Any party opposing the motion for summary
judgment must respond to each fact set forth by the movant by either:
(1) Agreeing that the fact is undisputed;
(2) Agreeing that the fact is undisputed for the purpose of ruling on the motion for
summary judgment only; or
(3) Demonstrating that the fact is disputed. Each disputed fact must be supported
by a citation to the record.
...
(f) Failure to Respond. If a timely response to a moving party’s statement of
material facts, or a non-moving party’s statement of additional facts, is not filed
within the time periods provided by these rules, the asserted facts shall be deemed
undisputed for purposes of summary judgment.
L. R. 56.01.
C. Motion for Summary Judgment
It would be inappropriate to grant Mr. Shelton’s Motion solely on the ground that Ms.
Lewis has failed to respond. See Stough v. Mayville Community Schools, 138 F.3d 612, 614 (6th
Cir. 1998). As the Sixth Circuit has stated:

9
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 9 of 21 PageID #: 162

[A] district court cannot grant summary judgment in favor of a movant simply
because the adverse party has not responded. The court is required, at a minimum,
to examine the movant’s motion for summary judgment to ensure that he has
discharged [his initial] burden . . . . The federal rules require that the party filing a
motion for summary judgment “always bears the burden of demonstrating the
absence of a genuine issue as to a material fact.”
Id. (citations omitted).
The Court will, therefore, consider whether Mr. Shelton has met his burdens under the
appropriate summary judgment standards discussed below.
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c),
A party asserting that a fact cannot be or is genuinely disputed must support the
assertion by:
(A) citing to particular parts of materials in the record, including depositions,
documents, electronically stored information, affidavits or declarations,
stipulations (including those made for purposes of the motion only), admissions,
interrogatory answers, or other materials; or
(B) showing that the materials cited do not establish the absence or presence of a
genuine dispute, or that an adverse party cannot produce admissible evidence to
support the fact.
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
A dispute is “genuine” only if “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a
verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct.
2505, 2510, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).
In order to prevail on a Motion for Summary Judgment, the moving party must meet the
burden of proving the absence of a genuine issue as to material fact concerning an essential element
of the opposing party’s claim. Celotex v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 2553, 91 L.
Ed. 2d 265 (1986); Street v. J.C. Bradford & Co., 886 F.2d 1472, 1479 (6th Cir. 1989). In
determining whether the moving party has met its burden, the Court must view the evidence in the
light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Matsushita Electric Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp.,

10
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 10 of 21 PageID #: 163

475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 1356, 89 L. Ed. 2d 538 (1986).
If a nonmoving party fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an
element essential to that party’s case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial,
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact because a complete failure of proof concerning an
essential element of the nonmoving party’s case necessarily renders all other facts immaterial.
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23, 106 S.Ct. at 2552, 91 L. Ed. 2d at 273. When this occurs, the moving
party is entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law. Id.; Williams v. Ford Motor Co., 187
F.3d 533, 537-38 (6th Cir. 1999).
D.

Qualified Immunity

Mr. Shelton argues that he is entitled to qualified immunity. Docket No. 29, p. 8.
Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.”
Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 200, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 2156, 150 L. Ed. 2d 272 (2001). Qualified
immunity generally shields government officials performing discretionary functions from liability
for civil damages “insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or
constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457
U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 2738, 73 L. Ed. 2d 396 (1982). The right at issue “must have been
articulated with a significant degree of particularity,” so that it is sufficiently clear to a reasonable
official that his or her conduct would violate the right at issue. Eugene D. v. Karman, 889 F.2d
701, 706 (6th Cir. 1989). Qualified immunity is available as long as the official’s actions “could
reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights [he or she is] alleged to have violated.”
Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U.S. 635, 638, 107 S.Ct. 3034, 3038, 97 L. Ed. 2d 523 (1987).
The initial inquiry and threshold question, according to the Supreme Court, is: “Taken in
the light most favorable to the party asserting the injury, do the facts alleged show the officer’s

11
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 11 of 21 PageID #: 164

conduct violated a constitutional right?” Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201, citing Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S.
226, 232, 111 S.Ct. 1789, 1973, 114 L. Ed. 2d 277 (1991). If no constitutional right was violated,
there is no necessity for further inquiry. Id.
A critical question is whether “any official in the defendants’ position would understand
that what he did violated those rights.” O’Brien v. City of Grand Rapids, 23 F.3d 990, 999 (6th
Cir. 1994). Qualified immunity, therefore, “does not turn on the subjective good faith of the
official; rather, it turns on the ‘objective legal reasonableness’ of his actions, assessed in light of
the legal rules that were ‘clearly established’ at the time the actions were taken.” Id. (quoting
Harlow, 457 U.S. at 818-19). “If officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether the
conduct violated the plaintiff’s rights,” qualified immunity will apply. Id. (citations omitted),
quoting Grossman v. Allen, 950 F.2d 338, 341 (6th Cir. 1991).
E.

42 U.S.C. § 1983

1.

Generally

Ms. Lewis alleges violations of her Eighth Amendment rights pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
See Docket No. 1.
Section 1983 provides, in part, that:
Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation,
custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of
Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the
United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the
deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action
at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...
42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Thus, in order to state a claim under § 1983, a plaintiff must allege the violation of a right
secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States and must show that the alleged deprivation

12
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 12 of 21 PageID #: 165

was committed by a person acting under color of state law. West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48, 108
S.Ct. 2250, 2254-55 (1988), citing Parratt v. Taylor, 451 U.S. 527, 535, 101 S.Ct. 1908, 1913, 68
L. Ed. 2d 420 (1981) (overruled in part on other grounds, Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 33031, 106 S.Ct. 662, 664-65, 88 L. Ed. 2d 662 (1986)); Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U.S. 149,
155, 98 S.Ct. 1729, 1733, 56 L. Ed. 2d 185 (1978). The traditional definition of acting under color
of state law requires that the defendant in a § 1983 action have exercised power “possessed by
virtue of state law and made possible only because the wrongdoer is clothed with the authority of
state law.” West, 487 U.S. at 49, quoting United States v. Classic, 313 U.S. 299, 326, 61 S.Ct.
1031, 1043, 85 L. Ed. 1368 (1941).
2.

Eighth Amendment

The Eighth Amendment provides that:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed,
nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
U.S. Const. amend. VIII.
The United States Supreme Court has held that the constitutional prohibition of “cruel and
unusual punishments” forbids punishments that are incompatible with “the evolving standards of
decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,” or which “involve the unnecessary and
wanton infliction of pain.” Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 102-03, 97 S.Ct. 285, 290, 50 L. Ed.
2d 251 (1976) (citations omitted).
In order to establish an Eighth Amendment claim, an inmate must satisfy a two-prong test:
(1) the deprivation alleged must be objectively serious; and (2) the official responsible for the
deprivation must have exhibited deliberate indifference to the inmate’s health or safety. Farmer v.
Brennan, 511 U.S. 825, 834, 114 S.Ct. 1970, 1977, 128 L. Ed. 2d 811 (1994).

13
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 13 of 21 PageID #: 166

a.

Excessive Force

Ms. Lewis alleges that Mr. Shelton used excessive force in his response to Ms. Lewis’s
attack on April 27, 2017. See Docket No. 1.
An inmate’s post-conviction excessive force claim is raised “exclusively under the Eighth
Amendment’s cruel and unusual punishment clause.” Combs v. Wilkinson, 315 F.3d 548, 556 (6th
Cir. 2002). While the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment
prohibits the wanton and unnecessary infliction of pain upon prisoners, the mere fact that a prisoner
was subjected to physical contact which may have been forceful does not, by itself, show an Eighth
Amendment violation. Parrish v. Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 604 (6th Cir. 1986). “[T]he good faith
use of physical force in pursuit of valid penological or institutional goals will rarely, if ever, violate
the Eighth Amendment.” Id., citing Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 319-20 (1986).
Where a prison security measure is involved, “the question whether the measure taken
inflicted unnecessary and wanton pain and suffering ultimately turns on whether force was applied
in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very
purpose of causing harm.” Whitley, 475 U.S. at 320-21.
b.

Deliberate Indifference to Serious Medical Needs

Ms. Lewis contends that jail medical staff evinced deliberate indifference to her serious
medical needs by denying her access to prescribed medications, failing to transport her to the
hospital in a timely manner while she was in labor, and failing to treat her abscessed tooth. See
Docket No. 1, pp. 7-8. It is undisputed, however, that Ms. Lewis was neither pregnant nor suffering
from an abscessed tooth during her incarceration at Cumberland County Jail. See Docket Nos. 301, ¶ 6; 30-1, pp. 2-3. Thus, the Court will consider only Ms. Lewis’s claim that jail medical staff
evinced deliberate indifference to her serious medical needs by denying her access to prescribed

14
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 14 of 21 PageID #: 167

medications.
The State has a constitutional obligation, under the Eighth Amendment, to provide
adequate medical care to those whom it has incarcerated. Estelle, 429 U.S. at 103.
"[D]eliberate indifference to serious medical needs of prisoners constitutes the
'unnecessary and wanton infliction of pain' proscribed by the Eighth Amendment." Id at 104
(citations omitted). The Supreme Court explained that "whether the indifference is manifested by
prison doctors in their response to the prisoner's needs or by prison guards in intentionally denying
or delaying access to medical care or intentionally interfering with the treatment once prescribed,"
it states a claim under § 1983. Id. at 104-05.
Not every prisoner's allegation of inadequate medical treatment, however, is a violation of
the Eighth Amendment. Id. at 105. For instance, courts have held that the accidental, inadvertent,
or negligent failure to provide adequate medical care does not state such a claim. Id. at 105-06
(citations omitted).
Pursuant to Supreme Court precedent, the Sixth Circuit held, in Hunt v. Reynolds, that
Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims must contain both an objective component, "that
[plaintiff's] medical needs were sufficiently serious," and a subjective component, "that the
defendant state officials were deliberately indifferent to the plaintiff's needs." 974 F.2d 734, 735
(6th Cir. 1992) (citations omitted).
In order to satisfy the objective requirement, the Supreme Court requires that an inmate
demonstrate evidence of a current harm or evidence of a medical complaint or condition of
confinement that "is sure or very likely to cause serious illness and needless suffering. . . ." Helling
v. McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 33, 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2480, 125 L. Ed. 2d 22 (1993). Under the Eighth
Amendment, inmate plaintiffs, therefore, are not required to prove they suffer from an actual

15
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 15 of 21 PageID #: 168

physical injury. Boretti v. Wiscomb, 930 F.2d 1150, 1155 (6th Cir. 1991), citing Parrish v.
Johnson, 800 F.2d 600, 610 (6th Cir. 1986). At the very least, however, plaintiffs must allege
unnecessary pain or suffering due to prison officials' deliberate indifference. Id.
As for the subjective element, the Sixth Circuit has held that "a determination of deliberate
indifference does not require proof of intent to harm. . . ." Weeks v. Chaboudy, 984 F.2d 185, 187
(6th Cir. 1993). However, there must be a showing of deliberate indifference to an inmate's serious
medical needs. Molton v. City of Cleveland, 839 F.2d 240, 243 (6th Cir. 1988), citing Westlake v.
Lucas, 537 F. 2d 857, 860 n. 3 (6th Cir. 1976). In fact, "[k]nowledge of the asserted serious needs
or of circumstances clearly indicating the existence of such needs, is essential to a finding of
deliberate indifference." Horn v. Madison County Fiscal Court, 22 F.3d 653, 660 (6th Cir. 1994)
(citations omitted). The inquiry, therefore, according to the Sixth Circuit, is "[w]as this individual
prison official aware of the risk to the inmate's health and deliberately indifferent to it?" ThaddeusX v. Blatter, 175 F.3d 378, 402 (6th Cir. 1999) (emphasis in original), citing Farmer, 511 U.S. at
837, 844.
F.

The Case at Bar

As an initial matter, Ms. Lewis’s claims against all Defendants are time-barred because she
failed to serve process upon Defendants within the allotted one-year time frame. See T.C.A. § 283-104(a)(3); Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3; Roberson, 399 F.3d at 794.
Because Ms. Lewis’s allegations against Mr. Shelton pertains to a single incident, i.e., her
assault on Mr. Shelton on April 27, 2017, she had one year from that date to file her lawsuit against
him. See T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(3); Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3; Docket No. 1. While Ms. Lewis filed her
lawsuit within one year, she failed to serve Mr. Shelton until May 10, 2019, more than two years
after the date of the alleged incident. Docket No. 19. Accordingly, her claims against Mr. Shelton

16
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 16 of 21 PageID #: 169

are time-barred. See T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(3); Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3.
Because Ms. Lewis claimed to have been denied medical treatment multiple times over the
course of her incarceration from September 2016 to June 2017 at Cumberland County Jail, she
had, at most, one year from the date of her release to file her lawsuit in this matter. See T.C.A. §
28-3-104(a)(3); Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3; Docket No. 1. As above, Ms. Lewis did file her lawsuit in a
timely manner, but her failure to ever identify or serve Defendant “Unknown Medical Personnel”
resulted in a time bar on these claims as well. See T.C.A. § 28-3-104(a)(3); Tenn. R. Civ. P. 3.
Despite being be provided the opportunity for limited early discovery to identify the
unnamed Defendants and direction to file an amended complaint, (Docket No. 8) the Plaintiff
failed to do so. Any motion to amend the Complaint under Rule 15 at this point and time would
be futile as the statute of limitations has run on those claims.
Even if they were not time-barred, however, Ms. Lewis’s claims would still fail for the
reasons discussed below.
Pursuant to Local Rule 56.01(f), Ms. Lewis’s failure to respond to Defendant’s Motion or
Statement of Undisputed Facts indicates “the asserted facts shall be deemed undisputed for
purposes of summary judgment.” L. R. 56.01. Accordingly, there are no genuine issues as to any
material fact, and all that remains to be determined is whether Defendants are entitled to a
judgment as a matter of law.
The Court finds that Ms. Lewis failed to make a showing sufficient to establish that her
constitutional rights were violated, an element essential to her case on which she would bear the
burden of proof at trial. See Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322-23. Thus, the Court finds that there is no
genuine issue as to any material fact. See id. Therefore, Mr. Shelton is entitled to summary
judgment as a matter of law. See id.; Williams, 187 F.3d at 537-38.

17
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 17 of 21 PageID #: 170

Taken in the light most favorable Ms. Lewis, the facts alleged fail to show that Mr.
Shelton’s conduct violated Ms. Lewis’s constitutional rights. See Saucier, 533 U.S. at 201.
Because of this, Ms. Lewis’s excessive force claim against Mr. Shelton fails for lack of support;
alternatively, Mr. Shelton is entitled to qualified immunity. See id.
Ms. Lewis argues that Mr. Shelton violated her Eighth Amendment right by using
excessive force while restraining her after she attacked him. Docket No. 1, p. 7. Ms. Lewis alleges
that, after she struck Mr. Shelton on April 27, 2017, Mr. Shelton responded by striking her in
return. Id. Ms. Lewis further alleges that Mr. Shelton jumped on Ms. Lewis’s back after ordering
her to the ground and jammed his knee into her mid-back, despite being aware of Ms. Lewis’s
prior back surgery. Id. After another officer handcuffed Ms. Lewis, Ms. Lewis contends that Mr.
Shelton tightened the handcuffs until Ms. Lewis lost feeling in her arms. Id. As a result of this
altercation, Ms. Lewis avers that she suffered “multiple bruises on her back, arms and wrists as
well as a black eye.” Id.
However, the undisputed evidence fails to corroborate Ms. Lewis’s allegations or to
establish that Mr. Shelton violated her Eighth Amendment right. The undisputed evidence shows
that Ms. Lewis struck Mr. Shelton multiple times, causing him to fear for his safety. Docket No.
30-2, ¶ 4. Mr. Shelton then straddled Ms. Lewis, attempting to restrain her, but was unsuccessful
until other officers showed up to assist. Docket No. 30-2, ¶ 5, Docket No. 30-3, ¶ 3, Docket No.
30-4, ¶ 2. The Declarations of Mr. Shelton and Officers Hamby and Hughes establish that Mr.
Shelton did not exert any force on Ms. Lewis after she was subdued. Docket No. 30-3, ¶ 4; Docket
No. 30-5, ¶ 5. This evidence further establishes that Mr. Shelton did not put his knee in Ms. Lewis’s
back or tighten her handcuffs. Docket No. 30-2, ¶ 6; Docket No. 30-3, ¶ 4; Docket No. 30-4, ¶ 3;
Docket No. 30-5, ¶ 5. Finally, the evidence shows that Ms. Lewis never complained that her

18
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 18 of 21 PageID #: 171

handcuffs were too tight. Docket No. 30-2, ¶ 6; Docket No. 30-3, ¶ 4; Docket No. 30-4, ¶ 3. Thus,
the undisputed evidence does not show that Mr. Shelton’s conduct violated Ms. Lewis’s Eighth
Amendment right or any other constitutional right. Accordingly, Ms. Lewis’s claim fails for lack
of evidence; alternatively, Ms. Lewis’s failure to establish a violation of her constitutional right
entitles Mr. Shelton to qualified immunity.
Turning to Defendant “Unknown Medical Personnel,” the claims against this Defendant
fail because Ms. Lewis has not set forth facts in this action that support a constitutional claim based
on allegations that she was denied adequate medical care.2 While Ms. Lewis has presented
evidence sufficient to support her allegations of a history of seizures, the undisputed evidence fails
to show that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to Ms. Lewis’s serious medical issues.
Ms. Lewis alleges that, during her incarceration at the Cumberland County Jail, she was
denied all medications that had previously been prescribed for treatment of seizure-related issues
and mental health issues. Docket No. 1, p. 7. Ms. Lewis maintains that her mother brought her
medications to the jail, but jail personnel refused to give them to Ms. Lewis, and jail medical staff
refused to prescribe replacement medications. Id. Ms. Lewis avers that she asked jail medical staff
to obtain her prior medical records from her personal physicians and signed multiple releases. Id.

2

Alternatively, as noted above this claim fails because of Ms. Lewis’s failure to identify
or serve parties. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 10(a) requires Ms. Lewis to "name all the parties"
in the Complaint. Fed. R. Civ. P. 10. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) further requires that all
Defendants be served within 90 days. Fed. R. Civ. P. 4. On December 13, 2018, Judge Crenshaw
granted Ms. Lewis early discovery to identify the medical personnel responsible for her care at the
jail and directed Ms. Lewis to identify and serve process upon such defendants. Docket No. 7, p.
7. Judge Crenshaw further reminded Ms. Lewis of the 90-day requirement of Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(m)
and notified Ms. Lewis that the Court would count the 90 days from the date of the Memorandum
Order. Id. Ms. Lewis did file an Amendment to her Complaint but failed to identify the medical
personnel against whom the claim was filed. Docket No. 16. Defendant “Unknown Medical
Personnel” remains unserved.

19
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 19 of 21 PageID #: 172

Ms. Lewis’s medical records dated August 31, 2015 note a history of seizures, including a
seizure in February of 2015. Docket No. 30-1, p. 9. Mr. Shelton’s undisputed declaration also
indicates that he had responded to Ms. Lewis’s alleged seizures on previous occasions. Docket No.
30-2, ¶ 3. Taken in the light most favorable to Ms. Lewis, such evidence supports the allegation
that Ms. Lewis was suffering from severe medical conditions and that jail medical staff were aware
of these conditions.
However, Ms. Lewis fails to establish that Defendant “Unknown Medical Personnel” was
deliberately indifferent to Ms. Lewis’s medical issues. Tennessee Corrections Institute Regulations
require that any prescribed medications be verified and, further, that only the jail physician is
qualified to prescribe medications or order specific treatment for inmates while they are in custody
and under the care of jail medical personnel. Docket No. 30-1, ¶ 3. Additionally, the evidence
shows that, on January 5, 2017, Nurse Gabby Starnes asked Ms. Lewis to sign a release of medical
records from Advanced Spine and Pain Clinic, which Ms. Lewis declined. Docket No. 30-1, p. 4.
Ms. Lewis fails to provide evidence to support her allegation that she signed multiple medical
releases on other occasions. Thus, the undisputed evidence establishes that jail medical personnel
did attempt to verify Ms. Lewis’s conditions and provide treatment for her in accordance with
Corrections Institute Regulations. Because the undisputed evidence fails to support Ms. Lewis’s
allegations of deliberate indifference to Ms. Lewis’s serious medical needs, this claim fails.
IV. CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned finds that the statute of limitations bars Ms.
Lewis’s claims. Furthermore, the undersigned finds that: (1) Ms. Lewis failed to demonstrate that
her constitutional rights were violated, and (2) Mr. Shelton is entitled to qualified immunity. The
undersigned therefore recommends that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Docket No.

20
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 20 of 21 PageID #: 173

28) be GRANTED.
Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days
after service of this Report and Recommendation in which to file any written objections to this
Recommendation with the District Court. Any party opposing said objections shall have fourteen
(14) days after service of any objections filed to this Report in which to file any response to said
objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of service of this Report
and Recommendation can constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. See
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 106 S. Ct. 466, 88 L. Ed. 2d 435 (1985), reh’g denied, 474 U.S.
1111 (1986); 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72.

___________________________________
JEFFREY S. FRENSLEY
United States Magistrate Judge

21
Case 2:18-cv-00029 Document 36 Filed 08/06/20 Page 21 of 21 PageID #: 174